appeal or writ error in Alabama

2010That court reasoned that the divorce judgment made final division of the couple’s marital property and that “[abatement does not occur when the [divorce judgment] affects property rights, and matters touching the parties’ property rights under the divorce [judgment] are amenable to alteration or modification upon timely motion, or upon appeal.” 550 So.2d at 1006 (citing Cox, 242 Ala. at 39 , 4 So.2d at 737 (noting that “[i]t is a further general rule that the death of a party, pending an appeal or writ of error, furnishes no grounds for the abatement of the suit”), and Stapleton v. Stapleton,

2010That court reasoned that the divorce judgment made final division of the couple’s marital property and that “[abatement does not occur when the [divorce judgment] affects property rights, and matters touching the parties’ property rights under the divorce [judgment] are amenable to alteration or modification upon timely motion, or upon appeal.” 550 So.2d at 1006 (citing Cox, 242 Ala. at 39 , 4 So.2d at 737 (noting that “[i]t is a further general rule that the death of a party, pending an appeal or writ of error, furnishes no grounds for the abatement of the suit”), and Stapleton v. Stapleton,

2010That court reasoned that the divorce judgment made final division of the couple’s marital property and that “[abatement does not occur when the [divorce judgment] affects property rights, and matters touching the parties’ property rights under the divorce [judgment] are amenable to alteration or modification upon timely motion, or upon appeal.” 550 So.2d at 1006 (citing Cox, 242 Ala. at 39 , 4 So.2d at 737 (noting that “[i]t is a further general rule that the death of a party, pending an appeal or writ of error, furnishes no grounds for the abatement of the suit”), and Stapleton v. Stapleton,

1958Willingham v. State, 14 Ala. 539 ; May v. State, 55 Ala. 164 ; Smith v. State, 253 Ala. 277 , 44 So.2d 250 .

1958Willingham v. State, 14 Ala. 539 ; May v. State, 55 Ala. 164 ; Smith v. State, 253 Ala. 277 , 44 So.2d 250 .

1958Willingham v. State, 14 Ala. 539 ; May v. State, 55 Ala. 164 ; Smith v. State, 253 Ala. 277 , 44 So.2d 250 .

1958Willingham v. State, 14 Ala. 539 ; May v. State, 55 Ala. 164 ; Smith v. State, 253 Ala. 277 , 44 So.2d 250 .

1935Ex parte Nunnally Co., 209 Ala. 82 , 95 So. 343 ; State v. Live Oak, P. & G.

1935Ex parte Nunnally Co., 209 Ala. 82 , 95 So. 343 ; State v. Live Oak, P. & G.

1928The decision in Ex parte Knight, supra, was predicated on the provisions of the statute regulating and providing for review in criminal cases, as they appear in the Code of 1876, §§ 4978-49S0, and under this system it was held that “the remedy being a substitute for an appeal or writ of error, and given by statute, to obtain its benefits there must be a substantial compliance with all the statute requires” ; that an adverse ruling of the court apparent upon the record proper, followed by a statement in the judgment of the trial court that, “questions of law having arisen in this case for the d

1927“As a general rule, where a judgment is favorable to one or more codefendants, and adverse as to others, the latter should be joined in an appeal or writ of error brought by plaintiff to review the action in favor of the former.” 3 Corp. Jur. 1019, § 973, citing, among other cases, Duncan v. Hargrove, 22 Ala. 150 .

1912In one sense all courts from which an appeal or writ of error lies are inferior in relation to the court before which their judgments may be carried, and by which they may be reviewed, annulled, or affirmed. — Nugent v. State, 18 Ala. 521 .

1912A writ of habeas corpus cannot be made a substitutes) for an appeal or writ of error. —Ex parte Haley, 1 Ala. App. 528 , 56 South. 215 .

1911This court, concurring with all others, holds that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to do service for an appeal or writ of error, and that the writ is not addressed to questions of error or irregularity, but to the question whether the judgment and sentence under which the petitioner is held is a mere nullity.—Ex p arte Simmons, 62 Ala. 416 ; Ex parte Roberson, 123 Ala. 103 , 26 South. 645 , 82 Am.

1911This court, concurring with all others, holds that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to do service for an appeal or writ of error, and that the writ is not addressed to questions of error or irregularity, but to the question whether the judgment and sentence under which the petitioner is held is a mere nullity.—Ex p arte Simmons, 62 Ala. 416 ; Ex parte Roberson, 123 Ala. 103 , 26 South. 645 , 82 Am.

1906On June 17th, five days thereafter, the sale wa-s' coniirmed. - The appellant did -not appear in any of the proceedings on the original bill. • The difference between a bill of review and an appeal or writ of error is: stated clearly in the case of McCall v. McCurdy, 69 Ala. 65 .

1900Dig., 717, § 1; Ex parte Brown, 58 Ala. 536 .

1867On the 16th February, 1867, before the motion for ah affirmance in this case was made, an act was approved, in the words following: “ No undecided appeal to the supreme court, heretofore taken, or hereafter taken, shall be deemed or treated as discontinued, or as having lost its force, unless the appellant shall duly move for a discontinuance, after legal cause of discontinuance has occurred.”—Session Acts, 1866-67, p. 547. [1.] By an uniform chain of decisions under the Code and under the law which preceded it, an appeal or writ of error to this court is discontinued, and functus officio, unl

1867On the 16th February, 1867, before the motion for ah affirmance in this case was made, an act was approved, in the words following: “ No undecided appeal to the supreme court, heretofore taken, or hereafter taken, shall be deemed or treated as discontinued, or as having lost its force, unless the appellant shall duly move for a discontinuance, after legal cause of discontinuance has occurred.”—Session Acts, 1866-67, p. 547. [1.] By an uniform chain of decisions under the Code and under the law which preceded it, an appeal or writ of error to this court is discontinued, and functus officio, unl

1867On the 16th February, 1867, before the motion for ah affirmance in this case was made, an act was approved, in the words following: “ No undecided appeal to the supreme court, heretofore taken, or hereafter taken, shall be deemed or treated as discontinued, or as having lost its force, unless the appellant shall duly move for a discontinuance, after legal cause of discontinuance has occurred.”—Session Acts, 1866-67, p. 547. [1.] By an uniform chain of decisions under the Code and under the law which preceded it, an appeal or writ of error to this court is discontinued, and functus officio, unl

1867On the 16th February, 1867, before the motion for ah affirmance in this case was made, an act was approved, in the words following: “ No undecided appeal to the supreme court, heretofore taken, or hereafter taken, shall be deemed or treated as discontinued, or as having lost its force, unless the appellant shall duly move for a discontinuance, after legal cause of discontinuance has occurred.”—Session Acts, 1866-67, p. 547. [1.] By an uniform chain of decisions under the Code and under the law which preceded it, an appeal or writ of error to this court is discontinued, and functus officio, unl

1867On the 16th February, 1867, before the motion for ah affirmance in this case was made, an act was approved, in the words following: “ No undecided appeal to the supreme court, heretofore taken, or hereafter taken, shall be deemed or treated as discontinued, or as having lost its force, unless the appellant shall duly move for a discontinuance, after legal cause of discontinuance has occurred.”—Session Acts, 1866-67, p. 547. [1.] By an uniform chain of decisions under the Code and under the law which preceded it, an appeal or writ of error to this court is discontinued, and functus officio, unl

1867On the 16th February, 1867, before the motion for ah affirmance in this case was made, an act was approved, in the words following: “ No undecided appeal to the supreme court, heretofore taken, or hereafter taken, shall be deemed or treated as discontinued, or as having lost its force, unless the appellant shall duly move for a discontinuance, after legal cause of discontinuance has occurred.”—Session Acts, 1866-67, p. 547. [1.] By an uniform chain of decisions under the Code and under the law which preceded it, an appeal or writ of error to this court is discontinued, and functus officio, unl

1863But, “ when an appeal or writ of error is spoken of, the statute' must be understood as using these terms in their known and received signification, and ought not to be extended to take in cases in which neither could be taken according to any course of practice known either to the civil or common law.” — Watson v. May, supra. The statute can not be regarded as authorizing an appeal ■by persons who are not parties.

1854We have already decided, that where one propounds his interest, and seeks to be made a. party to the record in the Orphans’ Court, and is so made, the order making him such will relate back to the time the decree was' rendered ; and" if, in such case, the period intervening between the rendition of the decree and the time at which the new party is made, exceeds three years, he will not be allowed to prosecute a writ of error.—Binford v. Binford, 22 Ala. 682 .